Digital art: Ricardo58
Photographer: John Paul of Minnesota
I've started working out on my Health Rider a half hour each day. While I'm pedaling, I admit it, I watch TV. Sometimes this means I see bits and pieces of, yes, I admit it, Dr. Phil. That show kind of puts your own life in perspective by demonstrating the outrageous thinking and behavior of fellow Americans.
One day last week, Dr. Phil hosted beauty queens whose crowns, as the show's title implied, had been tarnished. Of all the outrageous topics in all the world, this one would show up on my TV screen. The first tarnished queen cried and then fumed that a photographer had "tricked" her into posing nude and then unleashed the images onto the Internet, where they were snarfed up by a trashy man who makes money off a site called dirty.com.
Later, my friend Decogoddess (Miss Audrey) posted about this episode in her dA journal. I love her first sentence: "So yesterday while having breakfast I had the misfortune of seeing an episode of Dr. Phil." That alone gave me a good indication of what was coming. In fact, she saw the same episode I watched - about "this really beautiful redheaded beauty pageant girl (aren't we all sick of blondes?) who was stripped of her modeling contract and title because topless photos had surfaced." As I had, Miss Audrey watched the spectacle of "the poor girl" trying to dig herself out of a hole. She became yet another woman to discover what a "crazy, mean-spirited, closeminded society we live in."
The question we both have about this is why a model has to dig out of a hole just because she was photographed with her nipples showing. "Why can't we as a society just admit we love them, like them, lust after them, and let all alone?" Audrey asks. She's right, of course. Men lurk in alleys, buy binoculars, spend countless hours at porn sites, and keep a stash of girlie magazines under their mattress just to peep at (the forbidden-in-the U.S.) pink circles.
Because the United States of America decreed the female breast a forbidden pink fruit, we have more personal crime than countries in Europe, and that includes rape, child molesting, and incest. Audrey reports "there are more nipples and far less decapitation, dismemberment, and murder scenes" portrayed on European TV.
But let's go back to the beauty queen who posed nude, lost her crown, then showed up on a porn site that celebrates its misogyny by encouraging comments to degrade, bully, and generally ruin the lives of the models. Even the owner of this site leaves comments intended to punish the women who have provided not only entertainment but also his livelihood. Now that's what I'd call A Pimp.
"Why is a girl who poses nude demonized? Why is she stripped of a title? Why is her job in jeopardy?" asks Audrey. Those are excellent questions. I would also like to know why the men (whose wives are tending their children, cooking their meals, or folding their underwear) sneak off to their computers to ogle the obviously precious pink discs and then savage the same women by insulting their character and intelligence. What kind of schizophrenia is this?
Miss Audrey thinks we have bigger issues to deal with in 2012 than a beauty queen-turned-model showing her nips. "Why are we such a close-minded, messed up society?" she asks. Good question. Why do so many American men demonize human sexuality even as they pursue it both pitifully and ruthlessly? Of course, Dr. Phil did not ask any of these questions. He brought on an expert to tell the much-maligned beauty how to use the Internet to recreate herself and salvage her reputation, i.e., it's all her fault and she needs to change her ways and her image.
The morale to this story could be: Do not watch Dr. Phil, even while eating your Wheaties or riding your Health Rider. It just may not be good for your health.
24 comments:
How do you say "hypocrites"... let me see, the pageant directors (marketing slabs of meat) pick young woman and have them wear skimpy bathing suits (albeit one piece) with tape, some padding, maybe with breast implants, to make the male viewer wish he could take the winner to bed....
Excellent point, Enlightened. They are wearing bikinis in some pageants now. And of course it's true. They parade them to entice men and then condemn them when they do so.
Daddy: Whataya think of those? Mikee: Luuuunch! Bruce Willis gets all the good lines, that one from "Look Who's Talking."
I feel sorry for the lass, but not for the same reasons most folks would. I feel sympathy for the shock it must be to her finding out just what kind of scum bag people make up the world she was taught to admire, the sort of people who think beauty is a thing of social conformity to be put on parade like prime livestock at some FFA dog and pony show (perverted puns fully encouraged). Beauty pageants are total BS, an establishment fraud and a deception staged for one purpose and one purpose only: to dehumanize and intimidate women, not into sex objects that would remain human at least in part, but rather into icons of conformity representing the tyranny and hypocrisy of the social. Beauty pageants are the apogee of the old saying misery loves company, the miserable seeking companionship every woman who ever allowed the social to dictate her life to her, after all they're the ones who maintain the social standards of Beauty, the boys pretty well take what they're given. The men are secondary victims of their own stupidity (regardless if they are watching the beauty pageant or the porn people's offerings), the stupidity of conforming to societies' preference for perpetual emotionally immature males so easily manipulated, so easily leashed and led (take your own best guess where I think society prefers to hook the leash).
Yea, that would be the kind of thing Dr. Phil would have on. But then again, Dr. Phil is on network television, and ceNetworkTV has degraded to become little more than the prime propaganda outlet for the establishment, the obsolete and the outsourced. If they can't use and abuse her life walking a runway as an icon of conformance to their agenda of neurosis inspired hypocrisy they'll of course take the opportunity of using her as an example of the despair and misery waiting for anyone who dares contradict their intentions by being full human beyond their control. Of course they will.
Now, having said all of that? Lemme take a good deep breath here and I'll tell you what I really think...
Yep, that would be the kind of thing Dr. Phil would have on. Yep, he would never think to say to her all the things you just did, how the beauty pageant people put her out for entertainment and exploitation for their own profit and then snatched up her title when she showed her titulars.
I could say more but you already know what I really think.
I had a really interesting discussion the other day with a friend who rather likes dominatrixes and he said during our chat that he feels that men (deep down) expect women to behave badly as on some level, they do not ctually like them or that it's how men 'need' women to be/act?!
This struck me and I took this information away with me and here you are with this topic bringing it to the surface for me to look at again - thought I would share!
Hmm ponders.
Is it sweeps on TV already? :)
you probably know what I'm going to say....as a huge admirer and artist of the female breast, I can only hope that one day we readjust our thinking in this country and celebrate them as the beautiful, life giving globes that they are. However, as this country was founded, and is morally controlled by evangelicals, I don't think that will happen soon.
How ridiculous....God's greatest creation is always denigrated to something trashy on a show like that
Jan, thank you for sharing this. When I reached the end of this post, I realized all the evidence I had amassed that says men really resent women for attracting them. How odd. That's very different from the way I feel about a beautiful male or a beautiful woman for that matter.
Of course, sex is always power, isn't it. Indeed, this is something to ponder.
Vince, as someone who so beautifully draws the female breast, it's really interesting to know your thoughts. You must indeed find it all very sad, and I'm sure your own work gets askance glances and lewd thoughts from the same people.
CJ, responding here to Jan Murphy, and your response to his comment. I think you guys are onto something here.
You are quite correct, and you are the first woman I've ever heard say it in so many words: yes, the men do carry a resentment for the women being attractive to them. I touched on that in that "rant-in-italics" the other day, how that resentment can become as destructive in the life of a man as an opiate addiction.
Men need women, and women need men. The survival of the species depends on it, as does the survival of the individual on one level or another. Show me any genuine need that does not generate a proportionate resentment and fear based around that need, the demand it places on life. The resentment is of course the truly tyrannical power the need wields over our choices, the fear that whatever it is we simply cannot do without, can't create for ourselves, might be denied and leave us to suffer. Of course everyone rationalizes the need as a desire, learns to treat it as a desire, but at the foundation level the instinctive need is still the driving force.
A dominatrix of course brings that resentment into rational focus: if the man grants her to take the power, the control, then the conflict between the resentment and his rationalization of the reason for that resentment (as a desire rather than a need) is diminished, brought into a common polarity, the conflict is contained to a limited and self chosen facet of his life.
In these modern days the women are not quite so vulnerable to the need for men, not quite. Biology remains in play of course, but the courtesy of liberation and lesbianism the emotional contingent of that need doesn't bite nearly as hard as it once did. The instinct to nurture allows this option to the women where the male, by both biology (constant testosterone levels rather than cyclic) and instinct (to sacrifice himself as a last resort to protect his mate and progeny) are shaped to operate alone and expendable. That expendable part plays deep in the male psyche and soul as well CJ, a hidden power player in that resentment, it doesn't get mentioned as often as it should.
Jan Murphy, you didn't say so in so many words but I can easily see how a beauty pageant and a dominatrix draw power from the same three cornered conflict between the instinctive need and the rationalizations of that need as desire which all men live with in greater or lesser degree.
CJ, Jan Murphy, thanks guys. Think I'm going to join Jan in pondering, because sonar can't find the bottom of this thought, it goes way deep.
I came back on Wednesday from Amsterdam (with a horrendous cold), which made yesterday mostly a hazy day. It was a big culture shock to be back home In the USA for exactly the reasons you wrote about in your blog. Dr Phil has done so much damage and while I did not watch the program (I seldom watch TV) I can just hear the demonizing process spouting forth from the good doctor. The contrast between almost a week in Amsterdam with it's totally open society and here is enormous, yet difficult to describe. With legalized prostitution the crimes against women are remarkably fewer there than we experience here. With soft drugs legalized in Holland (and Switzerland) the jails do not have these enormous populations of what we label as drug dealers. Our jails are filled with 75% drug related arrests and the end is not in sight because we keep having to build more jails! As they say, don't get me started!! My children always knew that I photographed men and women in the nude and that I celebrated their beauty and bodies in my pictures. My grandchildren know exactly the same thing; Yep Opa makes nudies as they call them. And they can't wait for "naked baby time" which is just before their baths where they run through the house without clothes.
Ouch! I'm reminded of, a long time ago, Vanessa Williams (Miss Universe in, I think, 1969) who got her title zapped for having posed in Penthouse. Well, Vanessa was tough! She went on to become a star outside of the meat market.
First, I didn't watch the show.
But, I remember a similar situation along the lines of what was mentioned.
I forget the year, but it was the Miss America Pageant. The winner was stripped of her crown when nude photos she posed for appeared either in Playboy or Penthouse. Number two gained the crown.
Of that number two, I know nothing of what became of her.
Of the "tarnished" winner, we do... Vanessa Williams. Wonderful voice...nice career.
I keep this in mind when thinking of the general "winner" vs. "loser" in our society. How many "American Idol" winners go nowhere, while those "losers" have well-established careers? I remember a story of Cheryl Crow winning the "best new female singer" (or something like that) at the Grammy's back in the 1980s (I think), and of Don Henley faxing her a list of previous winners...many who are "unknown's" today...she got the idea, and obviously didn't rest on her trophy laurels.
Yeah, I'm missing part of your point in the posting...but it's 2:30am and I can blame being tired, OK?
Enjoy the snow!
:) Richard
Richard, yes, I too remember what happened to Vanessa Williams, and it certainly did not preclude her having a dignified, respected career. At that time I think people were outraged that the pageant stripped her of the title. She was a popular choice for the win.
But in those days, it was a print pub that displayed her nudes. As I recall, they were with another woman and a tad more revealing than topless. No Internet, no dirty.com, no bullying and harassment.
This has to do with the Pixel Forest methinks??? Has the Internet become a haven for pedophiles and misogynists???
Chronophontes, I agree Vanessa handled it very, very well. She kind of shrugged her pretty shoulders and went on. As I said to Richard's comment, though, the Internet and dirty.com did not reign over our lives then. Could that be part of the problem?
....the first thing I wound up thinking of was the fact that the only beauty queen i could think of who ever really had a sucessful public career was Vanessa Williams, who had her crown stripped because of some early photos that Penthouse decided to run. :O_o:
Does it make sense that a pagent that primarily focuses on the physical aspects of young women then reviles any contestants who show their bodies the next step beyond the mandatory swimsuit competition?
Or that sports-medicine-trained "Dr. Phil" then panders to the salacious tastes of his audience ratings while councelling an embarassed girl to "go and sin no more"?
Darkwolf, it makes no sense at all. And you show the inconsistencies in your comment. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple.
To be honest w/ you, I'm more outraged (if it could be even called that) with the beauty queen's statements. Specificaly that the photographer "tricked" her into posing nude. What, did he slip her a date-rape drug that impaired her judgement?
Let's say he didn't & she posed of her own free-will, she could have declined. If he was still pressuring her, why didn't she leave?
For argument's sake let's assume that the model still is in the "right". Was there a release signed? If so, (again) why did she sign it? If she didn't sign, it sounds more like a matter for the civil courts.
Overall, this just sounds more like a case of buyer's remorse on the model's end. Its also should be a life lesson that ones actions can have consequences.
Semi, in general, the model should just stop defending herself and ask what's wrong with being photographed topless. Here's the whole story on the aspect you're commenting on:
The pageant officials set her up with the photographer. I have to wonder why the pageant officials set her up and then didn't back her up. They could tell the photographers they use not to photograph their contestants' nipples.
It's all a mess, and you're right. She should not apologize. As far as the photographer, nothing was said about a contract, so I don't know. I assume because the photographer represented the pageant, she was not careful about the contract, if she had one, regarding free use of her image online.
My greatest outrage is why this is even an issue. I say, So what? She might be better off if that's what she says, too.
I'm sorry. I guess I just misunderstood.
I was originally under the impression that the model worked w/ Photographer X & he persuaded her to do nudes (or whatever). Instead I'm getting the sense that it was the pagent photographer?
Semi, the pageant officials connected her with this photographer, at least according to what the model said on Dr. Phil.
Oh, and, Semi, you did NOT misunderstand. The model's story was indeed that she worked w/ Photographer X & he persuaded her to do nudes. I remember the detail she mentioned in telling her story - that the pageant connected her with him and therefore she trusted his advice to do nudes - but no one picked up on that.
I would have thought someone, maybe even Dr. Phil? - would have asked what the photographer's position was in regard to the pageant (staff photographer? official photographer? recommended photographer? friend of a pageant official?) and why the pageant officials could blame her and not themselves.
The questions asked and not asked seemed telling to me.
You ask some very valid questions but we probably won't get any sort of good answer(s) from either the officials or the photographer. It doesn't sound like they were invited to the show for whatever reasons (maybe not wanting to put themselves in the position of being ambushed on camera?).
Nor do we know what kind of paperwork the model/pagent queen signed. The pagent circuit is pretty dang conservative mostly because their beholden to their sponsors, both in putting on the shows as well as the scholarship/prize money they dish out.
W/o knowing anything else, my gut still think the onus of responsibility is on the model. It wouldn't surprise me if she was coached off-camera to make the incident sound more tawdry in generating sympathy (& thus increase ratings) as well as to reinforce the perception that "poor, innocent model being taken advantage of sinister, manipulative photographer".
Could be someone is protecting the pageant system, Semi? I hadn't thought of that before, but conservative systems always protect themselves.
You're pointing out what bothered Audrey and me the most about the show - the model's refusal to take responsibility for posing topless which, as you know, Audrey and I have also done and with no apology.
I would like to know more about the photographer's connection to the pageant though. To protect the pageant, it would not be good to focus on the photographer's connection to them. The model herself left the pageant blameless.
This whole controversy has probably done one thing very well: It has likely pulled in millions of dollars and higher ratings for the networks! Never mind the poor souls who get destroyed in the process.
Now, if I say that I do not resent women in the slightest for my being attracted to them, am I in denial? *lol* Actually, I don't think so. I know my needs and the choices I've made, so there's really nothing to resent--or if there is, it's my own needs, choices and character. And how can I resent those and be happy with myself?
I would love to see a good, old-fashioned, moral situation comedy of the "Beaver" type--set in a nudist resort, showing full-frontal nudity of both genders on prime time! That might even take the US out of the Dark Ages of misogyny and violence against women. -- Naaaah, not "bloody" likely.
Post a Comment